Thanks to Paul Hamilton of Wizbang Blue, I discovered this analysis of a recent Bush Adminstration National Security Presidential Directive on dealing with governmental contiguity after a major disaster.

Once I cut through the hysteria, I came away with two conclusions.

The first is, this is precisely the sort of thing that Bush's critics have been demanding of him. Witness how the federal response to two natural disasters has been slammed -- the Greensburg tornado and Hurricane Katrina. In both cases, the administration was savaged for its "slow response" to the destruction. In both cases, though, the critics forgot that under pesky, annoying restraints like the law and the Constitution, the federal government is constrained from intervening without the consent of the state government. As a check on federal power and a recognition of state's rights, the role of the federal government is curtailed unless and until the governor of the state officially asks for help. In both cases, the sitting governor (ironically, both Democrats named Kathleen) has to say the magic words before the federal government can intervene.

To do so otherwise would be to grant the President the authority to essentially federalize an entire state and set aside the duly elected local officials. "Sorry, governor, this mess in one city is too much for you to handle. We're gonna put you and the legislature and your courts and your police on the bench while we step in and run things -- just for the duration of the emergency, of course. If we need you, we'll let you know and tell you just what you gotta do."

The second conclusion I came to was a bit less sarcastic. As someone who grew up in the Cold War, the Directive sounded vaguely familiar -- it reminded me of stuff I read about the government's plans in case of an all-out nuclear attack. The chances of that happening now are pretty much non-existent (thank you, President Reagan -- we owe you far more than we knew when you left office), but the possibility of a single massive, devastating incident is no longer a purely theoretical exercise in this modern world -- and as New Orleans showed us all, it doesn't require the malice of man to happen.

The directive, as I read the thing, is NOT a blueprint for tyranny. The very second sentence reads:

This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

So we have the President -- the Chief Executive, the head of the Executive Branch -- "prescrib(ing) continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies," but "provid(ing) guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations." The first part uses mandatory language, while the second is purely advisory and non-compulsory.

As a certain golden 'droid might say, "we're doomed!" (And about as accurately.)

It turns out that this document, on my reading, is a reasoned -- and reasonable -- response to the criticisms of the Bush administration over the two aforementioned natural disasters. Someone looked at the old plans for handling a nuclear attack, dusted them off, and updated them. (Somewhat better than Les Nessman did with his "Communists attack" scenario when Cincinnati was hit by tornadoes.)

So, at what point does the "Progressive" movement grow tired of being hysterical ninnies?

"OH, Horror! Have you heard about this federal agency called FEMA? They have the power to take away my stockpile of gas masks and water purifyers, oh the fascism!"

That's what I kept reading on the Intarwebs in the past. Then we got 9/11 and a mismanaged hurricane, and now it's all "The Federal governemt must come rolling in with tanks at least a week before the anticipated disaster" or some such. Oh brother.

They'll grow tired of being hysterical ninnies about the same time anything they do or support is actually progress. I just can't help but laugh every time I hear one of them refer to himself as progressive. The only reason the name is still with us is because they haven't figured out yet that it's taken on the same meaning of their old, abanodoned and now shunned name of Liberals.

The term Progressive denotes change but not in a particular direction. Thus, the "Progressive" movement growing more hysterical should be no surprise. In fact, if hysterical doesn't achieve the goal then it's natural for progressives to become even more hysterical and ninnies to boot. Where they go from there is the real question.

Problem is, when you go nutcase paranoid like that, there isn't ANYTHING that can reasonably be done. Any attempt to dissuade them is seen as simple evidence that they ARE right, because otherwise there wouldn't be anyone trying to persuade them they're wrong! It's a nice little setup - anything (even nothing) will reinforce it.

Leftists aren't worth considering, when there are so many important things to do. Consider it good discipline to ignore them, while making your own careful preparations for an uncertain future.

The left may control the media, the educational system from top to bottom, and most of the governmental bureaucracy. In a crisis, all of that counts for nothing. The US military is the only semi-competent institution of note, should a large crisis ever occur.

If the left takes over all three branches of US government, as in the first two years of Clinton, there is the risk that the military will be destroyed. If the left can maintain that total control for more than two or four years, the damage may be irreparable.

That would be the time to prepare your safe houses, your stockpiles of supplies, your false documents, just in case.

The left promised to leave the US if Bush stays president. Why didn't they leave? Because the US stays a livable country only as long as the left is not in total control.

JT, as always, a good post. I will say that I have much respect for the President. He has encountered many obstacles that there was no template for response from past administrations. He and his team had to do something no other administration had to do in such grand scale in a short period of time. They had to rewrite the "play books" for just about everything that can or will happen to the US. A decade or two after leaving office, GW will historically get the many kudo's he serves. Except for his immigration stance, I am much impressed with him. ww

I keep popping in over at WizbangBlue. They, and others like them are such ideologues that they are blinded to any semblance of truth, and it makes them dangerous. The tripe they publish over there is not worth responding to, though I occasionally try. Their only prism is all-consuming hatred for political opposition.

Katrina was a bit of a mini-epiphany for me. I saw the BDS about the event and noticed Bush's response of wanting a way to circumvent the governor and came up with the idea that: We don't have our rights taken away unwillingly; we demand it.

BDS ruled the day, and Bush-- a 'big government' man -- responded.

There were so many conservative lessons to learn from Katrina, yet it was the liberal or Democrat screaming that was heard.

So, at what point does the "Progressive" movement grow tired of being hysterical ninnies?
Ummm, never? Some members will come and go (some will stay forever as aging hipsters, the men with gray ponytails, the women with unshaven pits and legs wearing faded tie-dyed clothing liberally covered in peace symbols) but the movement will never get less shrill.
Why do I say that? Because young girls are usually lefty in outlook and guys need to attract their attention so the more hysterical the more hotties. So in other words, the peacock with the brightest plumage, the lion with the loudest roar, the ram with the hardest head and "progressive" with the most OUTRAGE!11!!!! gets the girl.
It's a law of nature.

Here's the problem with disaster response the way I see it. FEMA has arbitrarily decided that in case of emergency, *they* are the primary authority. And yet, as you said, unless the state requests help, they can't act. These are contradictory positions.

Obviously we need some sort of central authority to coordinate disaster response, but that is NOT the same thing as saying they should run the show. I believe that state and local governments will always have the best knowledge about the situation and the needs of their own areas, and thus, ultimate authority should rest with them -- at least so long as that authority isn't totally disrupted by the situation, and NOLA never degenerate to the point where there wasn't still an active state and local authority.

I believe that the proper role of FEMA should be to receive the requests of local governments and to channel resources to the places that need the help. The breakdown occurred when FEMA claimed that they never got help and then all the aid which was sent just went to waste.

A disaster is the worst possible time for the sort of jealous, petty political bickering which happened in the wake of Katrina. It was a disgrace for all concerned, local, state and federal.

Regarding the Bush plan, the biggest problem I have with it is how nebulous the criteria are where the president can declare an emergency and suspend the normal checks and balances of government. Would Katrina have qualified? Hard to tell...

Again, if the fertilizer really hits the ventilator, I believe that local authorities are best equipped to determine the needs of their own people. It's been shown time and again that central government cannot deal with things on a local level so the feds should coordinate, not dominate.

>It's been shown time and again that central government cannot deal with things on a local level so the feds should coordinate, not dominate.

Hear, hear. Quoted for truth, etc. But the federal government should also have the power to kick local official's arses - so to speak - if they screw things up, loot their citizens etc. That should be an exception though.

Again, if the fertilizer really hits the ventilator, I believe that local authorities are best equipped to determine the needs of their own people. It's been shown time and again that central government cannot deal with things on a local level so the feds should coordinate, not dominate.

George W. Bush is indeed hated and despised. Bush may not be "self-aware" relative to his narcissistic personality disorder. A lot of mentally ill people are oblivious and/or in denial of their mental illness. But Bush is probably aware that he has psychological problems. Bush may quibble over semantics or interpretations or opinions about whether it would be appropriate or fair to say that he has psychological problems of "clinical significance."

George W. Bush is gravely mentally ill and needs help.

It is on the Internet: people are "counting the days til Bush leaves office."

The American people can hardly wait til Bush leaves office. The presidency of Bush has been a nightmare for the American people and for the world. The narcissistic personality disorder of Bush has certainly contributed to what is almost his inability to do anything right.